Wearing the veil in schools: the debate continues – Clive Sheldon QC

27 January 2016 by

527355094_b1aededd8a_bLast week the Prime Minister entered into the debate on the wearing of veils by Muslim women in schools. This week, it is the turn of the Chief Inspector of Schools, Sir Michael Wilshire. The Chief Inspector has said that:

The Prime Minister and Secretary of State are right to give their backing to schools and other institutions which insist on removing face coverings when it makes sense to do so.

I am concerned that some heads and principals who are trying to restrict the wearing of the full veil in certain circumstances are coming under pressure from others to relax their policy. I want to assure these leaders that they can rely on my full backing for the stance they are taking.

I have also made clear to my inspectors that where leaders are condoning the wearing of the face veil by staff members or by pupils when this is clearly hindering communication and effective teaching, they should give consideration to judging the school as inadequate.

I am determined to ensure that discrimination, including on the grounds of gender, has no place in our classrooms. We want our schools, whether faith schools or non-faith schools, to prepare their pupils equally for life in 21st century Britain. We need to be confident our children’s education and future prospects are not being harmed in any way.

What are the legal issues for schools?

The legal issues for schools are interesting, and require careful thought.

The starting point is Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights which provides that:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

 Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Where a student wishes to wear the niqab (the veil that covers a female’s face), this will amount to the manifestation of her religion. Whether or not this freedom has been interfered with, or limited, will depend firstly on whether or not she is able to attend a different school at which wearing the niqab is permitted.

In the leading case dealing with Article 9 and school uniforms — R (Begum) v. Governors of Denbigh High School [2006] UKHL 15, the majority of the House of Lords held that there was no limitation or interference with a student’s Article 9 right to wear the jilbab (a body length dress), where it was possible for her to attend other local schools and wear the jilbab. See, in particular, paragraph 23 of Lord Bingham’s speech:

The Strasbourg institutions have not been at all ready to find an interference with the right to manifest religious belief in practice or observance where a person has voluntarily accepted an employment or role which does not accommodate that practice or observance and there are other means open to the person to practise or observe his or her religion without undue hardship or inconvenience.

Similarly, in R(X) v. HeadTeacher of Y School [2007] EWHC 298 (Admin), a case which concerned a female student who wished to wear the niqab at school, but this was refused. In that case, Mr Justice Silber held at paragraph 40 that:

“I therefore conclude that the claimant’s article 9 rights have not been interfered with as she could have accepted the offer of a place at school Q which achieved good academic results and which is easy for her to get to and most significantly where she could wear her niqab. I add that the claimant has not adduced any evidence or made any submission to indicate that this school is an unacceptable school for her.”

If there are no other schools that the student could attend that would permit her to wear the niqab, the prohibition could interfere with her Article 9 rights, and the analysis would then turn to what the rationale was for the prohibition. Article 9 allows for justification where the aim of the interference with the freedom to manifest religion is “in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” This requires the prohibition to further a legitimate aim, and for the prohibition to be proportionate.

If the argument being forward by the school for the prohibition on wearing the niqab is ‘educational’, that may be difficult to sustain. How, for instance, are the ‘rights and freedoms’ of other students affected by the wearing by the student of a niqab? Indeed, that was the view (obiter) of Silber J. in the X v. Y case. In that case, a number of reasons were put forward by the school for why the niqab could not be worn. One of the reasons was the educational one: see paragraph 84:

“The case for the school is that by wearing the niqab, the claimant would hamper her learning and the ability of the school to teach her for the reasons which I have explained in paragraph 64 (f) to (i) above. The head teacher explains that effective learning depends on pupils being able to interact with each other and in particular with the teacher. She says that effective teaching depends on the teacher being able to see if the pupils understand what she is being taught and if she is paying attention as well as discovering if she is distressed or enthusiastic.”

At paragraph 90, Mr Justice Silber. stated that:

“There is no evidence that the learning by the claimant’s classmates has been impaired or adversely affected by a girl in their class wearing a niqab. In consequence, the school cannot rely on this ground relating to educational factors under article 9(2).”

Other justifications

There may be other reasons, however, that could justify the interference.

In X v. Y, the Court held that interference would have been justified for other reasons: e.g. pressure on other Muslim girls. Similarly, in Begum, where this was a particular concern that would have justified the interference. This approach is supported by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of SAS v. France (2015) 60 E.H.R.R. 11 (the prohibition on concealing one’s face in public was held to be justified and proportionate insofar as it sought to guarantee the conditions of “living together”).

Before, therefore, schools rush to follow the approach suggested by the Prime Minister, and now supported by the Chief Inspector, they should think carefully. Schools should consider the availability of other schools in the area that the student could attend and would allow her to wear the veil. Schools should ask themselves why the prohibition is required, and see how this fits with the potential justifications afforded by Article 9(2). Otherwise, they run the risk of a successful human rights challenge.

Clive Sheldon QC is a barrister at 11 KBW. This article was first posted on the 11 KBW Education Law Blog and is re-posted here with permission and thanks.

5 comments


  1. Jonathan Bell says:

    On the X v Y point, a similar argument was run successfully by the school defending a discrimination claim in Azmi v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (EAT). Mrs Azmi was a translator in school lessons. The school observed her lessons and concluded that Mrs Azmi’s face covering interferred with her communication with students and therefore a ban was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

  2. Anyoldiron says:

    Every school should have a Uniform, most certainly in the school I went to, all had to have the same uniform-and that was indeed in WAR TIME too. There were no excuses in those days, rather like our Forces at that time too-they too had to have the same Uniforms all the time for the Army, Navy and Air-force etc.. If it could be done in WAR-TIME it most certainly can be done in “TODAY’s WORLD” Just make it happen-no excuses.
    .

  3. Informed Choice says:

    I think that this situation need never arise: Indoctrination of minors simply should not be allowed, any more than sex or alcohol. Let them decide when they are mature enough to do so. Until then, by all means, teach about religions, but imposing any one before an informed choice can be made, is in itself a blow against right to freedom of religion.

  4. truthaholics says:

    Reblogged this on | truthaholics and commented:
    “Before, therefore, schools rush to follow the approach suggested by the Prime Minister, and now supported by the Chief Inspector, they should think carefully. Schools should consider the availability of other schools in the area that the student could attend and would allow her to wear the veil. Schools should ask themselves why the prohibition is required, and see how this fits with the potential justifications afforded by Article 9(2). Otherwise, they run the risk of a successful human rights challenge.”

  5. Geoffrey says:

    I regret that, in European cultures, the veil has become seen as a gesture of defiance, support for jihad even when it may not be so intended.
    The head scarf, however, is most becoming.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: